Cost and complexity could pull the plug on proposed deposit return scheme
Without a Uk-wide approach, the industry could struggle with costs and labelling being initially imposed only in Scotland, writes Chala Mckenna
Scotland’s deposit return scheme (DRS), due to be launched in July 2022, could be further delayed amid concerns that global events have impaired the ability of the drinks industry and retailers to suitably prepare for its implementation.
When it does go live, consumers in Scotland will pay a 20p deposit on each drink purchased in a singleusecontainerwhichtheywillrecoup when returning the empty over the counter or via a reverse vending machine.
The scheme will include: Polyethylene Terephthalate plastic bottles, commonly used for fizzy drinks and water;steelandaluminiumcans;and glass bottles, ranging in size from 50ml to three litres.
UK drinks producers and importers must register with SEPA and will beboundbyanumberoflegalobligations regarding container collection and management. Retailers, including online vendors selling takeaway drinks, will be required to impose the 20p deposit and be required to operate a return point at each of their premises for empty containers.meanwhilebarsandrestaurants, where bottled drinks are consumed onpremises,willpaythe20pperunit deposit to their suppliers and claim it back when the empty containers are collected.
Scotland was to become the first part of the UK to introduce a DRS, with England and Wales also planning to implement their own initiatives. However, the Scottish Government has now commissioned an independent review assessing the impact of the pandemic and other issues including Brexit which could lead to a further delay.
This would be welcomed by most businesses as key operational and legislative issues around the DRS remain. Scottish SMES, including craft brewers and drinks retailers, have already expressed concerns that the cost and complexity of the scheme could make it unviable to sell their produce. Without a unified, Uk-wide approach, they could struggle with additional costs and labellingrequirementsbeinginitially imposed only in Scotland.
Incorporating glass, one of the three main materials used to make singleusedrinkscontainers,intothe scheme is also proving problematic. Glass bottles could prove costly, especially for smaller businesses, as they are bulky and heavy to manage. Along with safety concerns being raised about breakages, the Scottish Retailconsortiumhasestimatedthe inclusion of glass in the DRS will add £50m per year to costs. Much of the glass currently collected in Scotland is not suitable for closed loop recycling due to the mixing of colours and crushing. Its inclusion within the scheme will help address this problem, ensuring more glass can be reused.
Meanwhile the Aluminium Packaging Recycling Organisation has claimed the 20p deposit applied on all sizes of containers will disproportionately impact sales of smaller volume containers. The group’s research suggests two thirds of consumers would opt for larger plastic bottles which could cost the industry around £82m. Individual companies will meet the initial costs of the scheme before being later reimbursed, which will create further commercial challenges. A required investment in equipment or further resources to administer returns alongwithalackofsufficientstorage space are other common concerns being raised by retailers.
This could be partly addressed by businesses working together to utilise the proximity exemption which is available from Zero Waste Scotland. This enables retailers lacking sufficient storage space to use an alternative container collection point within 400m of their premises to accept returns on their behalf, provided it operates similar opening hours.
A successful DRS offers a positive post-pandemic legacy. It can significantlyreducelitteronourstreetsand inourparks,improvingourenvironmentandsupportingclimatechange targets. Let’s hope the lingering concerns of the drinks industry and retailers can be further mitigated. Chala Mckenna, Senior Solicitor, Davidson Chalmers Stewart LLP